This won’t go the way they planned
A while back, Vuurwapen Blog posited, with scientific evidece, that gun cleaner Fireclean was similar to some sort of vegetable oil. Well, now Fireclean is suing Andrew for this.
You can donate to his defense fund here.
March 31st, 2016 at 9:36 pm
Wow. On page 31, they actually say they have the same viscosity, flash point, and fire point as Crisco.
Their summary of his blog post(pages 7 and 8) is self-damning. Their only chance would be to wait and hope for a patent approval, and then that finding as proof that they have something new and different. The absence of a patent approval is prima facie evidence that their proprietary blend of 3 plant oils is, actually, a blend of 3 plant oils.
March 31st, 2016 at 9:49 pm
A friend once bought a bottle of expensive perfume – at a steeply discounted price – in Mexico. He then performed IR, NMR, GCMS and AA spectroscopy on that bottle and a bottle bought at Nordstroms in Dallas. Completely different compositions, despite apparently identical bottles & labels.
And the one from Nordstroms did not cause a rash when used by his wife. Caveat emptor.
March 31st, 2016 at 11:17 pm
Products like this typically do not file for patent protection – once you file, you have to disclose the ingredients, and then the jig is up. The recipe for Coca Cola and the “secret spice” for Kentucky Fried Chicken are two prime examples of trade secrets; neither are patented.
Patents aside, there are strong laws and legal precedent to protect trade secrets, which is what Fireclean would most likely be relying on.
March 31st, 2016 at 11:23 pm
It’s my understanding that this is the patent for FireClean: http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llm76jf7qX1qahq7yo1_500.gif
March 31st, 2016 at 11:24 pm
Derp. Bad copy/paste. This should be the patent: https://www.google.com/patents/CA2867869A1?cl=en Sorry.
April 1st, 2016 at 7:48 am
Kicked in my two bits. I don’t go changing lube every time we change the clocks for DST, so I probably never would have bought this crap anyway, but it would seems these dip shits have never heard of The Streisand Effect.
April 1st, 2016 at 7:49 am
*would seem.
April 1st, 2016 at 8:15 am
Wow. Not many companies I put on the “never buy” list but these guys made it. Already see this flying around the gun web.
Hope the Fire Clean knuckleheads learn a lesson or two, real soon. Nothing says confidence like suing people who talk about your product.
April 1st, 2016 at 9:09 am
If their patent clearly shows that it is not vegetable oil, but Andrew has definitively stated that it is vegetable oil, then he is in trouble.
We need to let this play out in court to see what happens, but from reading the complaint that their lawyer filed it looks to me like they at the very least have ‘a good case’.
*I’m not a lawyer. JMHO YMMV
April 1st, 2016 at 9:24 am
I stopped using Fire Clean for one simple reason: it is horrible. I used it on a variety of weapons and if left for an extended period of time (months) the lube turns to thick goo or dries to plastic. I am talking non-functional weapons. I reverted to synthetic, mineral, CLP and other standard lubes but I have had to detail clean a LOT of guns as a result of FireClean.
April 1st, 2016 at 10:20 am
He’s likely fucked, and this doesn’t seem to be friviouls suit filed by some large evil company.
You should read the actual lawsuit.
April 1st, 2016 at 10:50 am
Why wouldn’t the, “I was honestly wrong” defense work? Isn’t there some detail in law that someone writing a review or journalistic item have to be proven to have some malicious intent? Basically, if the reviewer can say, “look, here is the evidence I used to base my review upon” and can show good faith evidence how does this meet the malicious intent requirement?
April 2nd, 2016 at 1:09 am
Robin says, “if left for an extended period of time (months) the lube turns to thick goo or dries to plastic.”
Vegetable oils carry linoleic acid to various degrees. Good for making a paint and linoleum flooring.